9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally belongs to them since the inception of business in Rajasthan, especially when it is free to all - reliance placed in the case of Kali Areated Water Works vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madura [2015 (6) TMI 226 - SUPREME COURT] - the assessee-Appellants are entitled for the SSI exemption under N/N. 1/1993 dated 28.02.1993 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 1491 of 2011 - FINAL ORDER NO. 52985/2017 - Dated:- 20-4-2017 - Mr.(Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Rep by Sh. Rajesh Chibber, Adv. Rep. by Sh. H.C. Saini, DR ORDER The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 131-CE/D-II/2011 dated 15.03.2011 passed by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Thus, the issue has travelled widely and third time, it is once again before the Tribunal. 4. With this background, we have heard Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants; and Shri H.C. Saini, learned DR for the Department. 5. During the course of arguments, Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants, submits that the assessee-Appellants are a legitimate owner of the Trade Mark CHAMRIA , though not registered. He accepted that it is surname which can be used in any product by anyone. He also submits that the monetary limit falls within the ceiling prescribed by the SSI Notification and apprised that in the subsequent years, the SSI exemption was allowed by the Department. On the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trade Mark Registry from the year 1948 to 1985 which were filed before the lower authority. I find the appellant‟s name also figures in the certificates issued in the year 1962 and 1970 when he became one of the partner of the erstwhile HUF Firm. The appellant have been marketing his products only within his own marketing area. It is not the case of the Revenue that any other person is using the same Brand names in the same area. Similarly the appellant is not selling his goods outside his marketing area. So far his business is concerned the appellant appears to be the only legal owner of the Trade Mark within his marketing area. This has been clearly brought out in the Mutual Agreement dated 12-3-1993 which has been duly presented on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication cannot take away the ownership right of the appellant over the brand names KaliMark Bovonto and Frutang and other brand names and applying the same to the specified goods manufactured by the appellant and marketing the same within his own marketing area in exclusion of others. On perusing the trade mark certificates, Decree of the Civil Court, Mutual Agreement dated 12-3-1993 and also considering the above contentions, I find that the appellant is the legal owner of the brand names within his marketing area. 5 . It is thus manifest that the appellant has been using its own brand name Kalimark and it belongs to the appellant. In view thereof, the case of the appellant is squarely covered in its favour by the judgment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
